KMK Law Complex Litigation Blog

Late television curmudgeon Andy Rooney is said to have observed that “nothing in fine print is good news.” Based on a recent decision from the Sixth Circuit, the fine print can be good news for some, and costly for others.

In a reversal of precedent, a divided National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) held yesterday that employees have a right to use their employers’ email systems for non-business purposes, including statutorily protected communications regarding the terms and conditions of their employment and regarding union organizing efforts. See Purple Communications, Inc., 361 NLRB No. 126 (December 11, 2014).  The NLRB’s ruling stemmed from a case brought by the Communications Workers of America union after it unsuccessfully attempted to organize employees of Purple Communications, Inc., a company that provides interpreting services for the deaf and hearing-impaired.  The union argued that prohibiting the company’s workers from using the company’s email system for non-business purposes and on behalf of organizations not associated with the company interfered with the CWA’s organizing efforts. 

In a case featuring a heated pretrial-discovery battle between heavyweights, a U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge in Tennessee recently approved the use of predictive coding in reviewing over two million documents for responsiveness.  

In today’s increasingly data-driven world, compliance with discovery requirements can mean production of hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, if not millions. Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) was enacted to reduce the costs and risks associated with discovery, and to allow a federal court to protect the privilege of documents that have been inadvertently disclosed. Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) provides that “a federal court may order that the privilege or protection is not waived by disclosure connected with the litigation pending before the court – in which event the disclosure is also not a waiver in any other federal or state proceeding.”

Two  federal courts recently dealt with thorny issues stemming from defendant employers’ use of the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. These rulings should be heeded by those of us who develop or revise electronic data review protocols, particularly any  guidance for determining when to withhold documents under the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine.

While most ERISA litigators are anxiously awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, (Sup. Ct. Dkt. 12-741), they should also be paying close attention to the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision in Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc. (Sup. Dkt. 13-317). 

Searching for the right team to help in a litigation matter often means looking for the Goldilocks firm.  As companies and in-house counsel are under increasing pressure to find quality representation at lower costs, there are lots of paper proposals and tough decisions to make.  Big Law has high overhead that comes with multiple offices and mergers/expansion, which translates to higher billing rates (with multiple firms now having partners billing at over $1,000/hr) and more bodies on matters.

On December 1, 2013, several amendments to Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure went into effect.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued its long awaited decision in American Express v. Italian Colors Restaurant.  The decision is a must read for every business. 

The Supreme Court has granted a certiorari petition in Mississippi v. Au Optronics Corp., S. Ct. Case No. 12-2036, and agreed to decide an issue that will impact the growing number of attorney general civil lawsuits around the country: "[w]hether a state's parens patriae action is removable as a 'mass action' under the Class Action Fairness Act when the state is the sole plaintiff, the claims arise under state law, and the state attorney general possesses statutory and common-law authority to assert all claims in the complaint."